[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3cccec37-ef58-cccb-7ab8-499ebfe133be@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 13:31:37 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 00/27] io_uring zerocopy send
On 9/26/22 1:08 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> Tried it out, the branch below fixes a small problem, adds a couple
> of extra optimisations and now it actually uses registered buffers.
>
> https://github.com/isilence/iperf iou-sendzc
thanks for the patch; will it pull it in.
>
> Still, the submission loop looked a bit weird, i.e. it submits I/O
> to io_uring only when it exhausts sqes instead of sending right
> away with some notion of QD and/or sending in batches. The approach
> is good for batching (SQ size =16 here), but not so for latency.
>
> I also see some CPU cycles being burnt in select(2). io_uring wait
> would be more natural and perhaps more performant, but I didn't
> spend enough time with iperf to say for sure.
ok. It will be a while before I have time to come back to it. In the
meantime it seems like some io_uring changes happened between your dev
branch and what was merged into liburing (compile worked on your branch
but fails with upstream). Is the ZC support in liburing now?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists